VALUTAZIONE IMDb
5,7/10
13.939
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaAfter poor advice from a psychic leads to the death of his wife, a man vows to disprove the existence of the paranormal by allowing himself to be possessed by demons.After poor advice from a psychic leads to the death of his wife, a man vows to disprove the existence of the paranormal by allowing himself to be possessed by demons.After poor advice from a psychic leads to the death of his wife, a man vows to disprove the existence of the paranormal by allowing himself to be possessed by demons.
- Premi
- 2 candidature totali
Michael Lespinasse
- Cop
- (as Michael Lesly)
- …
Recensioni in evidenza
The Possession of Michael King is an entertaining, thrilling, and well thought out horror film. I was hesitant to watch at first, expecting another generic possession movie, but the premise is original and catches your interest off the bat. Instead of the typical wrong place wrong time possession this is a case of curiosity killing the cat. There are a few scattered jump scares but seeing Michael's descent is what sticks with you after the credits have rolled. Overall this was well shot and acted, my only real complaint is that they could have taken their time and dug more into the religious exploration scenes in the first act.
If I find a movie with an intriguing premise, I ignore the reviews and give it a shot. An interesting story that begs you to find out what transpires, goes a long way. Michael King, an atheist, finds himself a widower as the result of his wife's trust in a spiritualist. So he sets out to prove all such people wrong, that there is no such thing as God or the devil, by making a documentary debunking the existence of the paranormal. He uses himself as the victim (er, subject), where he invites all sorts of practitioners of the occult to try and do their worst.
You can see where this is going just from the title. The Possession of Michael King, genre-wise, falls under a few catagories: It is part faux-documentary, part found footage, and part Paranormal Activity voyeuristic camera monitoring. Anyone on here complaining this is just another found footage movie is incorrect, and it's actually one of the things I DIDN'T like about this movie: It breaks from all these formats to go full-on cinematic. I think this would have been more effective had it been filmed by someone (fictitiously) inside the movie, not a cinematographer and director trying to find the right angles. I also found fault in the ending, where they spoon-feed you something that happened earlier in the film... which I felt they had already clearly spelled out before.
However, I did enjoy the story and the performances, and especially liked that Michael couldn't figure out which ritual actually caused the possession. That was a nice touch. Overall, as a descent-into-madness/"Possession Of" movie, this one fares pretty well.
You can see where this is going just from the title. The Possession of Michael King, genre-wise, falls under a few catagories: It is part faux-documentary, part found footage, and part Paranormal Activity voyeuristic camera monitoring. Anyone on here complaining this is just another found footage movie is incorrect, and it's actually one of the things I DIDN'T like about this movie: It breaks from all these formats to go full-on cinematic. I think this would have been more effective had it been filmed by someone (fictitiously) inside the movie, not a cinematographer and director trying to find the right angles. I also found fault in the ending, where they spoon-feed you something that happened earlier in the film... which I felt they had already clearly spelled out before.
However, I did enjoy the story and the performances, and especially liked that Michael couldn't figure out which ritual actually caused the possession. That was a nice touch. Overall, as a descent-into-madness/"Possession Of" movie, this one fares pretty well.
unexpectedly good.
I've watched this movie yesterday at night at 1 am .This movie was unexpectedly good ! I am not a fan of found footage movies but this movie entertained me .
The plot wasn't that good ! i've seen a lot of movies with similar idea and the movie isn't that scary but it was was entertaining from first to last minute with really good acting.
If you want to see a " good " horror movie that might scare you
i would recommend watching this movie.
6/10 for me.
I've watched this movie yesterday at night at 1 am .This movie was unexpectedly good ! I am not a fan of found footage movies but this movie entertained me .
The plot wasn't that good ! i've seen a lot of movies with similar idea and the movie isn't that scary but it was was entertaining from first to last minute with really good acting.
If you want to see a " good " horror movie that might scare you
i would recommend watching this movie.
6/10 for me.
I might have given this a 5 instead of 6 were it not for this film being director David Jung's first directorial effort. It is a well constructed film that shows a lot of promise, even if it doesn't quite deliver a completely satisfying experience. Jung, though he limits himself somewhat with the quasi-"found footage" conceit employed here, has good instincts about how to create a chilling atmosphere and doesn't overdo all the tricks and clichés of horror film making these days. He uses them, but not to excess.
Unfortunately, the story and screenplay (also credited to Jung) could have used more work. A lot of the scenes and shots are composed as if they are supposed to be captured by either cameras rigged up in the house or characters in the film, but then some aren't. It's not really clear what we're supposed to think. The lack of scenes with any meaty conversations means that most of the cast doesn't make much of an impression. Only an early scene where Michael King confronts a psychic "spiritual adviser" about her fakery is particularly effective, and actually gives Dale Dickey, as the psychic, something good to work with. Most of the film rests on Shane Johnson's shoulders as the titular character, and he does a good job given how much he has to sell here (practically the whole movie). We don't get much back story, it's not even clear how these people (a documentary filmmaker and an aspiring actress waiting for her big break) have so much money that they can afford a big atmospheric horror movie house and tons of expensive A/V and computer equipment. It just doesn't seem like Jung thought much about what kind of life these characters have when they aren't on screen. That means it's hard to get invested in what happens to them and that much harder to get scared by the action, because these folks just don't really come to life as much as they should.
This is pretty much a film I'd recommend only to horror fans who want to keep up with the genre and check out promising new filmmakers. I'm not sure anyone else would particularly enjoy watching this.
Unfortunately, the story and screenplay (also credited to Jung) could have used more work. A lot of the scenes and shots are composed as if they are supposed to be captured by either cameras rigged up in the house or characters in the film, but then some aren't. It's not really clear what we're supposed to think. The lack of scenes with any meaty conversations means that most of the cast doesn't make much of an impression. Only an early scene where Michael King confronts a psychic "spiritual adviser" about her fakery is particularly effective, and actually gives Dale Dickey, as the psychic, something good to work with. Most of the film rests on Shane Johnson's shoulders as the titular character, and he does a good job given how much he has to sell here (practically the whole movie). We don't get much back story, it's not even clear how these people (a documentary filmmaker and an aspiring actress waiting for her big break) have so much money that they can afford a big atmospheric horror movie house and tons of expensive A/V and computer equipment. It just doesn't seem like Jung thought much about what kind of life these characters have when they aren't on screen. That means it's hard to get invested in what happens to them and that much harder to get scared by the action, because these folks just don't really come to life as much as they should.
This is pretty much a film I'd recommend only to horror fans who want to keep up with the genre and check out promising new filmmakers. I'm not sure anyone else would particularly enjoy watching this.
A halfway decent plot is the only thing that really ties this movie together. The acting is actually pretty good, and there are even some very interesting characters that you can tell are having good fun with their parts. It's a simple plot, but grows on itself in an organic sort of way, consistently adding cohesive elements that work with the original idea. It's good writing.
Then there are two very real negatives to address. This is supposed to be a found footage feature, but when the camera hops too and fro and flips scenes so that you can see better, it really just destroys the illusion horribly. There are even instances where the camera appears to defy the action in the scene, such as remaining perfectly still while a crash has apparently happened. This sort of thing asks you to "turn off your brain" while you watch it. But honestly no one can really do that. There's always a little voice that says, "Hey, the camera can't do that! Oh yeah, this is a movie." It serves to impolitely yank you out of the immersion.
Make up your minds people. Is it, or is it not a found footage film? If it's not, then stop pretending that it's supposed to be.
Ultimately, the real problem is that this movie ends up being a simple jump scare feature. It's like having someone periodically popping a balloon in your ear while you are reading a scary book. Your adrenaline rushes, your heart pounds, your ears ring, and you exhibit all of the symptoms of "being afraid" without actually having a reason to be afraid. It's a cheap trick, and honestly it's very disappointing.
What's worse is that the "scare" volume is so incredibly high compared to the rest of the film that it's almost downright rude. After the first few times, I felt compelled to turn it off, but stuck it out instead only to have it periodically blast me throughout the rest of the feature. It's downright irritating.
All in all though, a pretty fun movie. I'm giving it a 7.
Then there are two very real negatives to address. This is supposed to be a found footage feature, but when the camera hops too and fro and flips scenes so that you can see better, it really just destroys the illusion horribly. There are even instances where the camera appears to defy the action in the scene, such as remaining perfectly still while a crash has apparently happened. This sort of thing asks you to "turn off your brain" while you watch it. But honestly no one can really do that. There's always a little voice that says, "Hey, the camera can't do that! Oh yeah, this is a movie." It serves to impolitely yank you out of the immersion.
Make up your minds people. Is it, or is it not a found footage film? If it's not, then stop pretending that it's supposed to be.
Ultimately, the real problem is that this movie ends up being a simple jump scare feature. It's like having someone periodically popping a balloon in your ear while you are reading a scary book. Your adrenaline rushes, your heart pounds, your ears ring, and you exhibit all of the symptoms of "being afraid" without actually having a reason to be afraid. It's a cheap trick, and honestly it's very disappointing.
What's worse is that the "scare" volume is so incredibly high compared to the rest of the film that it's almost downright rude. After the first few times, I felt compelled to turn it off, but stuck it out instead only to have it periodically blast me throughout the rest of the feature. It's downright irritating.
All in all though, a pretty fun movie. I'm giving it a 7.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizJulie McNiven played an angel in the TV showSupernatural (2005), which featured stories about demons, the occult, folklore, and other supernatural entities.
- ConnessioniReferences Shining (1980)
- Colonne sonoreThese Dreams
Written by Amelia Noble Wallace & Paul James Freeman
Performed by Amy Wallace
Courtesy of Amy Wallace
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is The Possession of Michael King?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
Botteghino
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 2.405.143 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 23min(83 min)
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti